Edge of Extinction: Good!

______

Please visit the DONATIONS tab. I’m open to non-monetary donations, subject only to your creativity. For example, I would appreciate your generosity with respect to frequent-flyer miles.

______

6-30 April 2015, western Europe (additional details forthcoming, and follow the tour at guymcpherson.net and also on Facebook)

25 April 2015, 6:00 p.m., Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, London, “Climate Awareness Seminar”

European tour spring 2015

McPherson’s latest book is co-authored by Carolyn Baker. Extinction Dialogs: How to Live with Death in Mind is available. Electronic copy is available here from Amazon.

_______

Tech note, courtesy of mo flow: Random issues have been appearing with posting comments. Sometimes a “Submit Comment” click will return a 404 Page Not Found, or another error, for no apparent reason. To ensure you don’t lose a longer comment, you can right-click select all, and right-click copy, in the comment box before clicking “Submit.” If that hasn’t been done, the comment text will likely still be in the comment box when clicking the back button, or the forward button — depending on the error — on your browser.

Pin It

Comments 66

  • my peeps! long time reader. first words. silly humans…just walk away(if only).

  • @ Carolyn, YW! (Sorry, I had nothing for St. P’s.)
    ==

    California Dreamin’

    On such a hot summer’s day,
    I pretend that I’m a gourmet,
    And the sommelier
    Finds the best cabernet
    To go with my soylent filet.
    ==

    Topanga Windows

    When you find your own doomer glass
    You can see what’s coming to pass,
    So just hang out here
    And be of good cheer
    Till you kiss goodbye to your ass.
    ==

    Aenema

    Mom, come, please flush it away,
    This fucking hole we call L.A.;
    I wanna see it drown,
    Bring it down, flush it down,
    Any fucking time, any day.

  • Ben! I flew to LA recently. The place is already all brown. Everything is brown. The city, the surrounding hills, all brown. And, as the old saying goes, ‘if it’s brown, FLUSH IT DOWN’!

    Oh, and BTW, Ben. Soylent is with a capitol ‘S’. They’re a big corporation, man, so show some respect. They have our best interests at heart.

    HEY! I’m an RN, and proud to say so! Helping people, not hurting people, ya dig? I switched careers at about 50 to dodge the stress as I got older. Nursing was the hardest work I ever did, and most fulfilling.

  • Gallows humor is an excellent defense, maybe even mandatory – but let’s not get too cavalier.
    Vanuatu devastation is off the chart – suffering, hunger, thirst, & ugly death.
    Ditto for Bangledesh.
    Children drowning is not good.
    Worse is coming, & it will be very ugly.
    Everybody gets a dose.
    It’s not just death coming, but how.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-17/cyclone-pam-before-after/6325222

  • Jesse Mike from in Nunavut says getting to NTE is real BAD.

  • It looks like we’ve been had again by the MAX PLANCK INSTITUE FOR METEOROLOGY,,

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/20/new-climate-paper-gives-global-warming-alarmists-one-helluva-beating/

    HAHAHAHA

  • WARNING! WARNING!

    I hit on Kill Switch’s link above and a ‘security’ scam immediately locked onto my laptop stating that I must call them immediately to escape the virus that was destroying my computer!

    There was no way to leave the site other than fully shutting down my computer.

    Everything seems OK now. I would seriously advise against hitting the above link.

  • Regarding greed and all the other stuff that was unresolved in the last thread:

    I was born into, and grew up in a society that was poles apart from American society: post-war Britain.

    In post-war Britain there was food rationing, and there was no ‘consumer society’ (other than for the greedy few at the top of the pyramid. And there were visible indications of war almost everywhere -bombed buildings and explosion craters -Southampton was a prime target for the Luftwaffe because it was a major port, had several airfield, had a major aircraft factory etc.

    My parents never owned the bungalow they lived in for most of their lives, and paid rent for decades to a greedy landlord, commencing just before WW2.

    The ordinary people of Britain -and especially English cities which took the brunt of the bombing- England got through the war by sharing and caring, and any form of greed was very much frowned upon.

    Contrast that with America, which was never significantly attacked -a few submarines off the coast- and which profited immensely from WW2; at the end of the war American was not just the only major nation still standing, it was richer (in than financial context) than ever.

    The post war Labour (socialist) government of 1946 tried to govern a bankrupt country which had pretty much exhausted itself. The American response was to condemn Britain to destitution (so much for allies and the ‘special relationship) and it was only Winston Churchill’s tour of American and pleading with well-off Americans that ‘if you don’t save the socialist government you will have a revolution on your hands and end up with a communist government’ that finally persuaded Americans to help Britain: what ensued was a deal at an almost punitive interest rate because by 1946 America had fully adopted the ‘greed is good philosophy.

    Most of the rest of the world never adopted the ‘greed is good’ philosophy despite the agents of sabotage in the form of corrupt politicians throughout the western world having attempted to ram the philosophy down the throats of people almost everywhere, including NZ. and there are still huge pockets of resistance to American culture which are getting stronger by the day as America falls victim to its own dysfunctional systems.

    Most of time I want LESS. However, I do want More intelligent thinking and more inclination to do research.

  • I have no problem with that link it’s a well known site Breitbart.com..

  • The text…

    A new scientific paper has driven yet another nail into the coffin of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. (H/T Bishop Hill)

    The paper – Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published in the American Meteorological Society journal – finds that the effects of aerosols on climate are much smaller than those in almost all the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Aerosols are the minute particles added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (as well as by non-anthropogenic sources, like volcanoes). The reason they are important is that they are so often cited by alarmists to excuse the awkward fact that the world has stubbornly failed to warm at the disastrous rate they predicted it would.

    Apparently – or so the excuse goes – these aerosols are masking the true extent of runaway climate change by cancelling out the effects of man-made CO2.

    Here, for example, is a NASA expert in 2009:

    Using climate models, we estimate that aerosols have masked about 50 percent of the warming that would otherwise have been caused by greenhouse gases trapping heat near the surface of the Earth

    Here is a report on a study from another institution – NOAA – with a long track record of ramping up the alarmist cause.

    A new study led by the U.S, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that tiny particles that make their way all the way up into the stratosphere may be offsetting a global rise in temperatures due to carbon emissions.

    Aerosols are often used to explain the lack of “global warming” in the cooling period between 1940 and 1970 (when the growth in industrialisation and all that extra man-made CO2 ought to have begun taking effect).

    They have also been used in this 2011 paper – whose co-authors include one Michael Mann, which gives you an idea of its quality and reliability – for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS). It claims that the reason there has been a “hiatus” in global warming since 1998 is because of the effect of aerosol emissions. This got one of the BBC’s resident alarmists Richard Black very excited. He wrote it up in an article entitled Global warming lull down to China’s coal growth. (Oddly he forgot to surround it with scare quotes, or finish it with a question mark.)

    The new Stevens paper has been described as a “game-changer” by one expert in the field, Nic Lewis.

    According to the IPCC’s models, the effect of aerosols on climate could be as much as 4.5 degrees C. But Stevens paper suggests that this is a considerable overestimate and that the reduction they effect on temperature cannot be more than 1.8 degrees C.

    This pretty much kills the alarmists’ “the aerosols ate my homework” excuse stone dead. If the cooling effects of aerosols turn out to be much smaller than the IPCC thinks, then what this means is that the rise in global temperatures attributable to man-made CO2 is also much smaller than the alarmists’ computer models acknowledge.

    As Andrew Montford comments here:

    Jim Hansen, Bob Ward, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, your climate alarmism just took one helluva beating.

  • Coincidentally, not long after writing the comment I discovered that Nomi Prins touches on the very thing I mentioned:

    [KR734] Keiser Report: Whop, Whop, Ponzi Style!

    Posted on March 21, 2015 by Stacy Herbert — 13 Comments ↓

    We discuss nations joining the anti-dollar alliance as those on the hamster wheel of debt grow tired of working, working, working to pay the interest to those in early on the global debt pyramid scheme. In the second half, Max interviews former Goldman Sachs banker, Nomi Prins, author of All the Presidents’ Bankers about the Cold War – Wall Street nexus of World Bank and NATO style institutions designed to enforce US hegemony.

    Read more at http://www.maxkeiser.com/#xPmdcpB7tjMRTaXZ.99
    http://www.maxkeiser.com/script%20language=

  • kill switch,

    what a lovely name!!! I’m impressed.

    But do yourself and the rest of life on Earth a favour: switch off and kill yourself.

  • Kevin Moore: Just wanted to be sure you saw this, so i’m repeating from the previous topic. Thanks for bringing some sanity and rational thinking into this forum and for your comments on “opinions” informed by misinformation and disinformation. At times, i feel like this place is experiencing the equivalent of what would happen if the Flat Earth Society were to take over the American Geophysical Union.

  • Jeff S.,

    Nope. March 20th, 2015 at 6:51 pm you wrote “And i love how he, Lidia, Bud Nye,….. consistently ignore the two posts a day limit,”. You really need to check your “facts”. How so? I RARELY have exceeded the two post per day policy, and on those rare occasions I did so as an error on my part. Meanwhile, I had no idea that I somehow “dominate” any “rap” here; I remain skeptical of the validity of that claim.

    Clive,

    I think that you, and many people presently commenting here, fell hook, line, and sinker for the quite insane, profoundly human supremacist, Cartesian idea that “Cogito ergo sum”, “I think, therefore I am”, or perhaps better “I am thinking, therefore I exist”: René Descartes’ popular philosophical proposition. Cartesians view the mind as wholly separate from the corporeal body. Descartes largely created the nonexistent, red herring, mind/body split that so many have obsessed over for so long and attempted to resolve. No “split” exists. Thinking, the “mind”, and consciousness, occur as functions of biological nerve cells. One might think that it would seem obvious: put a bullet through the brain, or otherwise kill or upset the delicate functioning of the nerve cells, and the thinking and consciousness radically change or stop. But this obvious fact does not “take” because thinking simply does not drive our thinking, as so many humanists arrogantly wish to believe and demand. Our emotions to a much greater extent do. But that implies a strongly unwanted lack of control, a lack of control unacceptable to human supremacist values.

    I described Descartes’ ever-so-popular idea as “quite insane” because he got it exactly backward, completely out of touch with reality. We FIRST exist as animals that Earth’s biosphere created, and THEN, sometimes, we may think—IF and when our much older and more powerful emotions allow us to. Our very slow thinking forebrains developed long after our physiology and the extremely fast emotional parts of our nervous systems developed. Our emotions can, and very often do, easily, instantly, and powerfully override our thinking. We see that happening nearly every day here in the comments at NBL. Someone reads a few pixelated symbols on their computer screen, and instantly they write a “Fuck you!” and many other choice words after the reader of the pixels, who within a few milliseconds after reading the symbols came totally unglued, has written to the person who dared to write something that they disagree with or in some other way got their emotional buttons pushed. This statement probably includes every human reading these words: reading the “right” symbols on the screen will yank nearly every one of us within about one tenth of a second out of our darling, Cartesian, rational thinking mode. Again, we see that drama demonstrated nearly every day here at this comment site as so many of us so often, and with much glee, verbally abuse one another. But, by all means, continue. Continue with the human supremacist, exclusive focus on and belief in a wished for power: that thinking, alone, will magically change people and the world while conveniently ignoring the much older and more powerful emotions, behavioral, and environmental context issues, which much more often and more surely run the show.

    I have written below a few things about emotions that some here might have an interest in:

    The emotion process includes three steps:
    *cue and fast appraisal of the environment
    *body arousal (primary emotions; usually unrecognized, often fear-related here at NBL, and not expressed)
    *reappraisal and meaning making (much slower, after the fact, secondary, reactive emotions; often anger, usually freely expressed, and often expressed in destructive, verbally violent, emotionally abusive ways here at NBL, sometimes rationalized based on the mistaken, pressure model idea that “catharsis is good”)

    Emotions serve as:
    *a source of information regarding the fit between environmental cues and your needs and goals
    *a vital element in constructing meaning
    *physiologically priming an action response
    *communicates and organizes social interactions

    Emotions, universally for all humans, include (name—survival function cued)
    *Anger—assert, defend self
    *Sadness—seek support, withdraw
    *Surprise—excitement attend, explore
    *Disgust/shame—hide, expel, avoid
    *Fear—flee, freeze, give up goal
    *Joy—contact, engage

    Emotion organizes interactions, orients and primes responses, accesses needs and desires, colors events, and HAS CONTROL PRECEDENCE and thus, far more often than not over our history as a species, has saved our lives. If you wish to deal with relationships, you have to deal with emotion because it has control precedence. It wipes out everything else. (In other words, you can pretty much forget about the idea that thinking has any kind of Cartesian control precedence.) If you do not deal with the emotions involved in a situation, they can, and will, sit on the sidelines and sabotage all the other things that you do, all the other nice little skill exercises, all of the other profound insight pieces—because emotion has so much speed and strength in comparison with our thinking. Meanwhile, most of our most powerful emotional responses relate to attachment issues. (As just one of many possible examples of emotions sabotaging thinking, some people, while believing that they can “unattach” from their emotions, display strong emotions in response to evidence and reasoning that challenge their cherished belief.) Emotional monsters don’t stay in boxes. They get out.

    Paul Chefurka,

    You wrote “It’s the cultural threshold that determines the label.” Yep. To a very large extent I think so. And the availability of energy, mainly as food and fuel, for the most part determines those cultural thresholds, thus expressing Odum’s Maximum Power Principle. And THERE we get into basic causes of our predicament (energy-driven population and consumption growth), far removed from human cognition, which plays a trivial role in the self-annihilation processes in comparison with the related energetic, emotional, and behavioral processes. Energy monsters don’t stay in boxes. They get out. But, again, these out-of-control complexity issues elicit fear and clash with our preference for comforting, human supremacist control. Or so it seems to me based on my present knowledge and experience. Perhaps tomorrow I will learn something new and, as a result, further revise my map of the territory.

  • Climate Change is humanity’s kill switch!

  • Bud Nye has to be a spam bot, no real person would waste time typing as much.

  • There is a scene in a movie the 300 where all the soldiers laugh.

    They are facing a great, in terms of size, Persian army with hundreds of elephants etc.

    They are in a narrow gorge being assailed by hundreds of archers.

    Their commander tells a joke amid hundreds of arrows bouncing off their shields, which look a bit like umbrellas.

    The joke was about fighting in the shade.

  • Sabine

    If you lived near me I would…

  • ALERT!!!!!!

    I had the same problem as Kirk with Kill Switch’s link. It froze my computer and there was no remedy but to shut it down and restart.

  • Dredd, i’m totally onboard with the present epoch being designated the Anthropocene. It’s an accurate assessment of what human activity has wrough — the mass extinctions, the pollution, the transformation of the earth’s landscape and environment — it’s staggering.

    Beyond that, I think the wider population will wake up to Guy’s message rather soon. California is running out of water. So is Sao Paulo. Antarctica ice shelves are melting quicker than previously thought possible. Runaway climate is upon us. It will only accelerate. It won’t be long before deliberate geo engineering is commenced. Human extinction will soon follow.

  • I have no idea as this is a site like all major sites,,,I posted the text as to avoid this strange anomaly… Again I have clicked the kink with FIREFOX, CHROME,and IE With no problems..

    Maybe NSA…

    Sorry for the problems but I have no explanation for this..

  • Everybody knows that Breitbart is a P.O.S.

  • Everybody knows that Breitbart is a P.O.S.

    That’s why I posted this nonsense in the first place shep the fact that this site is a POS politically has no bearing on the 1/0’s. that caused all laptops on the planet to crash. WTF

  • Sorry! I do not understand what u are saying KSwitch? Did not mean to dis u!

  • shep Says:
    March 21st, 2015 at 5:28 pm
    “Sorry! I do not understand what u are saying KSwitch? Did not mean to dis u!”

    So now we’re being nice to a-hole trolls? This forum is really sinking.

  • Dennis,

    I do not “type”; I write. And I find writing an extremely productive use of my time in helping me to develop and clarify my thinking as well as in communicating with others, not a “waste” at all. Given our education system’s massive failure, for decades, to teach students writing skills (which largely consist of thinking skills), from grade school through college level, I can understand your suggestion that writing and the related thinking presumably amount to a “waste of time”. Strongly contributing to this massive education failure, in this age of screenagers our short-term(!), extremely high embodied energy technology has trained us to respond to anything longer than a way over-simplified, short text, or a 140-characer Tweet, as pretty much “a waste of time”.

    Jeff S.,

    Your comment, “So now we’re being nice to a-hole trolls?”, presumably does NOT serve as an indicator of a “sinking” comment site? You hold this comment up as a model of a healthy, non-abusive, positive, relationship-building response?

    Ironically, I just watched Susan Johnson emphasize this point: “What is abuse? Sometimes in the most abusive relationship no one physically hits anyone else. CLEARLY SET BOUNDARIES FOR ACCEPTABLE TALK! If someone says, ‘Why not say x?!’ You can respond simply ‘Because I won’t tolerate it here.’”

    Of course, no one sets any such limits or boundaries on anything here, and experience over the past few months demonstrates that many more people than not will attack anyone who attempts to do that. So you, Jeff S., and many others, for all practical purposes have complete freedom to use your bullying, emotionally abusive, verbal violence however you wish, whenever you wish, and to whomever you wish, in that way, I suppose, “proving” your great “power” and presumably demonstrating how a really healthy culture supposedly should work. (I can hear the anarchists cheering you in the background.)

    So, OF COURSE this has become and remains a frequently traumatizing place for people to comment. It remains anything BUT an emotionally safe place for anyone to express one’s self, and OF COURSE people leave it in droves, or avoid it altogether. (And some people wonder why?) Contrary to your claim, I do not think that you, kill switch, shep, nor any other commenter here, has produced this “sinking” comment site (if, indeed, one decides to label it as “sinking”). Just as with relationships in general, the hurtful engagement patterns, in this case created and supported by the lack of even minimal boundaries, has produced this Lord of the Flies situation.

    I hypothesize that a little research would demonstrate that this site very effectively and strongly filters for two classes of “strong” people to comment here: those strong in healthy ways (meaning able to tolerate abusive behavior, not upsetting themselves over it), and those strong in decidedly unhealthy ways (meaning using, and supporting others using, bullying, emotionally abusive, verbal violence). Those not-so-strong in the middle in short order leave or fail to comment. Meanwhile, many of those strong in healthy ways leave because they get sick of dealing with the poisoned well: the childish, anarchist, bullying, emotionally abusive, verbal violence that so often dominates the “conversation” here, which often barely qualifies as conversation, and only rarely qualifies as any kind of actual dialog. Which group does the site then predominantly filter for? Who “dominates the rap” here? Easy answer, and nearly 100% predictable. (Obviously, Jeff S., neither I nor the small percentage of others who think as I do, do that dominating, contrary to your claim otherwise.)

    As the swordsman, Miyamoto Musashi, around 1645, writes in his “The Book of Five Rings”, a text on kenjutsu and the martial arts in general, “Justice without power is empty but power without justice is only violence.” “Power without justice is only violence”—just as we see so often here at NBL where so many people so often use their power with the clear intention mainly to hurt and abuse others, and as we see so often world-wide.

  • Hey Bud…saw this post about John Gottman’s work today on The Good Men Project. It’s all about how people fuck up their lives by having affairs, and how the affair itself isn’t the first betrayal, typically – but the last of many betrayals.

    https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/how-to-prevent-the-affair-wcz/

    Don’t get me wrong here – I have nothing against non-monogamy, as long as it’s ethical and by mutual consent. But affairs are a different kettle of fish entirely.

    I’m reminded of that walking disaster, John Edwards – who talked a good game about the “two Americas” and how much he love his wife with her cancer and what not – all while shtupping his videographer – and getting his staff and supposed friends to lie like the devil about it.

    Thank goodness for the National Enquirer! They should’ve won a Pulitzer for being out ahead of that story, as well as catching him in the act.

    For those who know more about the science than I do, I wonder how common adultery is (if it even exists at all) among other monkey type animals? Is this a peculiarly HUMAN behavior?

    It was certainly entertaining! And so is this joint! Lord of the Flies, indeed.

  • Dave Cohen’s
    Decline of the Empire
    03/21/2015
    Welcome To The Hotel California

  • I am able to see kill switch’s post without problems. However, I have AdBlock installed, so it prevents ads from taking me to sites with a lot of code, etc. that can freeze up a (slow) computer.

    In any event, the comments in response to that inane article really annoy me, if I allow myself to take it seriously. I don’t understand it—there a few brave souls on there arguing about whether AGW is a hoax or not. I no longer have any kind of energy to do that. People will figure it out sooner or later. My worry isn’t that I’ll be wrong, but that I’ll be right.

  • Judgmental

    Always judging others as wrong
    means one likely has a tiny little dong.
    But when it comes to the ‘judge’,
    he’ll never once budge,
    from self aggrandizement all day and night long!

  • I think all the heartfelt posters simply left when the blog was overrun with the mental masterbators and constant correctors. Rare are personal stories about dealing with NBL — now it’s all about what happened 10,000 years ago and/or how many farts will fit in a jar. Sure it all sounds important but it’s all empty words endlessly juggled for someones mental pleasure.

    No positive action can come of it – just more words and theories.

    Oh and the **someone’s wrong on the internet** gaggle of all knowing correctors.

    OFC that’s just my view from my throne.

  • Guy – I believe that that sentiment is more pervasive than one would expect especially here in the US. This is a comment I read years ago that sums it up well;

    We work jobs we hate in order to spend money we don’t have to buy stuff we don’t need to impress people we don’t like.

    And whats worse is that very few if any feel that we any options so please put us out of our misery.

    It does not have to be this way. The vast majority do not want it to be this way.

  • What other response other than “good!” can you give to the revelation that a cancer is dying?

  • Quote for bud “Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world”
    ― Miyamoto Musashi, A Book of Five Rings: The Classic Guide to Strategy

  • I never bought into the 10,000 year theory, or the wargene theory. Political and social systems. For me it was the discovery of oil, the English enclosure movement, capitalism, wage labor, and the absolute triumph of the ultra-right wing military/business assault on post 70s human culture, which masqueraded as common sense but has turned out to be a kind of world-suicide cult.

    Now I am just trying to figure out when it was that we slipped across the event horizon. Was it when the hostages were released? Was it the day Reagan took the solar panels off the roof? The week when Huey Newton was shot? The invasion of Panama? Before the torture of Iraq began and all the wells were set alight? The Exxon Valdez? When Carlo Giulliani was shot? The afternoon a Korean farmer committed suicide outside the gates of the WTO? Was it when tens of thousands of voters were disenfranchised to get Bush the presidency? Or all the carnage that followed? Was it the week Occupy was routed? Or the moment Eric Garner’s heart stopped? Will it be manyana or is it right now this very instant?

  • GUY,

    This post may turn your blog into a riot! Anyone who doesn’t listen to the entire 40+ minutes is a loon. Bill O’Liely makes a fool out of himself in one comment I heard of his trying desperately to find a way that women are dangerous for politics. Also, men have always been determined to say that women drivers cause more accidents than men but it ain’t so!!

    This BTW is the lady that I wish we could arrange with you for an interview.

    So many patriarchal arguments are pure dookey.

    Enjoy!

    Are Women Naturally Superior to Men!

    On Georgia Public Radio with host Celeste Headlee.

  • The busiest shops in New Plymouth these days are the Hospice Shops (two of them), which recycled second-hand goods at a phenomenal rate.

    Goods are donated, and the shops are run by volunteers. Items usually sell for between 1% and 20% of the new price, and money raised goes towards support of the local hospice, where people in the last stages of cancer are cared for.

    I spend most of my time trimming trees, cutting up tree trimmings making compost, propagating plants, harvesting food (mostly fruit at this time of the year), preparing food for storage,, and making or fixing things, but I also like to keep myself fully informed about global trends, which.

    Despite the ‘heavy’ workload, I still find time to visit friends and present reality to the ‘Orcs’ that constitute the bulk of NPDC, the local council.

    Quickly scanning through mainstream media websites keeps me appraised of what distractions and misinformation are being fed to the ‘ignorant masses’, and other websites keep me informed of what is happening in the world that may be of significance, especially in estimating how much longer present, dysfunctional economic and financial arrangements can be propped up.

    I have no time for navel-gazing, now that I am up and running at full speed (yesterday I helped a ‘little old lady who had a maintenance problem). When a friend asked me what I would do ‘tomorrow’ I said: “Some of the things I didn’t manage to get done today.”

    Having said all that, several years ago I went through a stage of not wanting to do anything because ‘what’s the point?: ‘nobody’ was listening to the vital information I was sharing, and of the few that were listening, only a tiny handful were actually doing anything worthwhile. I spent hours, days, weeks, months becoming expert at computer card games and computer chess etc.

    Some kind of turning point has finally been reached around here (a decade too late) in that ever=greater numbers of people are waking up to the fact that our so-called leaders have been lying scoundrels for years, and ‘everything’ is starting to fall to bits as a consequence.

    Harry Duynhoven, the phony socialist MP who sat and did nothing to oppose global corporate capitalism and actually signed away natural resources to global corporations got onto NPDC on a mere 3,800 votes (in a district with 73,000 residents) having been the worst failure as mayor in the history of the district, other than Andrew Judd (Judas) the incumbent. The recent ‘election’ (yet another farce) resulted from the resignations of two councillors who resigned in disgust at the corruption and ineptitude of the CEO, senor council officers and most councillors at NPDC.

    I know better understand the nature of the enemy: although ordinary people behave in an ‘idiotic’ manner most of the time it is because they have been carefully trained to behave in an idiotic manner by the agents of destruction associated with money-lending and corporate business (so called capitalism, in which capital is created out of thin air by members of the gang). And most people are just too uninformed and stupid to see what is right in front of them.

    ‘Interesting Times’ and ‘Life at the End of Empire on the Planet of the Maniacs’.

  • Ed,

    March 21st, 2015 at 11:57 pm you linked to an article that featured some of John Gottman’s work. Yes. A good article. Yes, affairs usually occur following many other attachment-related betrayals nicely described in the article.

    I understand and in a non-judgmental sense I agree with your comment, “Don’t get me wrong here – I have nothing against non-monogamy, as long as it’s ethical and by mutual consent. But affairs are a different kettle of fish entirely.” On the other hand, in her chapter on bonding through sex and touch, Susan Johnson describes three kinds of sexual relations we pursue, two of them quite toxic to love relationships:

    (1) Sealed-Off Sex. Here the goal involves reducing sexual tension, achieving orgasm, and feeling good about one’s sexual prowess. This happens among people who have never learned to trust and to open up, or who feel unsafe with their partner. The focus remains on sensation and performance, and the attachment bond with the other person remains secondary or non-existent. This kind of impersonal sex has toxic effects on love relationships. One or both partners usually feels used and objectified rather than valued as a person. Mostly men seem to practice Sealed-Off Sex, possibly due to the hormone testosterone, or possibly purely because of cultural conditioning.

    (2) Solace Sex. This occurs when we seek reassurance that another person values us. The sex act just occurs as a tag-along. The goal mainly involves alleviating our attachment fears. More emotional involvement occurs here than in Sealed-Off Sex, but anxiety for the most part directs the sexual dance. Gilleth’s research demonstrates that the more anxious we feel about depending on others, the more we tend to prefer cuddling and affection over intercourse. Solace Sex often happens when partners battle Hurtful Engagement Patterns and the relationship lacks safe, comforting touch, the most basic, bonding connection. We have a vital need from our earliest moments to the end of our days for touch. When sexuality occurs as an anti-anxiety pill, it cannot work in truly erotic ways.

    (3) Synchrony Sex. This occurs when emotional openness and responsiveness, tender touch, and erotic exploration all come together. This kind of sexuality fulfills, satisfies, and connects. When partners have a securely attached emotional connection, physical intimacy can retain all of its initial ardor and creativity over time, and then some. Synchrony (as occurs in the most enjoyable dancing!), gives a sense of deep rapport and timeless flow, and it occurs as the essence of connection—emotional, physical, and sexual. Emotional safety shapes physical synchrony, and physical synchrony shapes emotional safety. Emotional, attachment-related responsiveness outside the bedroom carries into it.

    You wrote “For those who know more about the science than I do, I wonder how common adultery is (if it even exists at all) among other monkey type animals? Is this a peculiarly HUMAN behavior?” I will respond to that. “Adultery” occurs extremely commonly not just among humans but among most, and possibly all other animals. The pygmy chimpanzees (the bonobos, Pan panicus, which, based on cladistics we really should classify as Homo panicus) mate freely up to 20 times a day with anyone willing. The common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes, better classified as Homo troglodytes), on the other hand, does not mate nearly as frequently, but it remains quite promiscuous. True monogamy appears to occur only rarely. Given the extremely high incidence of multiple marriages for people, we really would better call “monogamy”, which means “one marriage”, instead “serial sexual exclusivity”, a much more accurate descriptive label of what we actually do because we do not marry only once, but instead two or more times, usually remaining sexually exclusive during those multiple marriages (but with significant amounts of adultery).

  • Wester.

    ‘Now I am just trying to figure out when it was that we slipped across the event horizon.’

    I don’t have an exact answer for you but I can put you on the right track. I am too busy to re-research it right now:

    Following on from the revelation by Keeling that CO2 levels were rising (he started in 1957, so it must have been around 1963 to 1966 or so), a presidential taskforce of top scientists were gathered at a ‘retreat’. They concluded that CO2 posed a serious threat long terms (just as Arrhenius had determined) and recommended policies geared to decoupling from fossil fuel use -just as Admiral Rickover had suggested in 1957, and following on from Hubbert’s very public announcement in 1956 that fossil fuels were finite and that oil extraction would peak).

    Well, the person assigned to writing a policy recommendation to the president (whose name I cannot remember) had a dilemma: tell the truth or lie.

    He chose to lie, and altered to recommendations of the group of scientists to ‘no action necessary’ because at the time ‘what’s good for General Motors is good for America’.

    It was around that time that a lot of really nasty stuff commenced in America: the murder of Kennedy instigated by Bush senior, the ramping up of the Vietnam War, the murder of students who protested against eh Vietnam War, the hunting down and ‘extermination of ‘The Weathermen’ etc.

    It was around that time that the ability of Americans to laugh at themselves began a serious decline; series like ‘Get Smart’, in which secret agents were mostly inept fools and systems never worked (or if a good result eventuated it was by accident), and ‘Batman’, in which nobody got hurt, gave way to a much more sinister America, in which American ‘heroes saved the world from ‘evil’ Russians/Chinese/Koreans/South Americans/Arabs etc.

    Sadly. the ‘smiling assassin’, John Key, wants to take NZ down the path of digging an ever deeper hole for NZ through unstinting support for American dysfunction (which is no surprise, since he was up to his eyeballs in corruption and lies when active in Wall Street).

  • Bud: my comment was about “Kill Switch.” I have no apologies for making it. Someone who comes into a forum by saying FU to everybody, especially the site’s moderator/facilitator, deserves bi respect.

    Wester: no one Rubicon crossing, but many, as you illustrated, one could add the successful diversion by the media, “education” and the state apparatus, of the “Sixties” movement into many splintered efforts aimed at winning a cabin on the shop of fools, sinking though it was, working within the system for self-promotion, pursuing measly reforms instead of systemic change. Repression and co-optation were both used. A good read on this is John McMurtry’s “The Cancer Stage of Capitalism,” though the solutions offered are pretty lame, unfortunately.

  • In a recent post I said that the hidden trap of looking for “root causes” in complex systems is that there tend not to be any. Instead of root causes we usually find a tangled mass of feedback loops. The belief that one has uncovered a root cause is simply a belief, and a fragile one at that. It usually takes very little open-minded research to find other contributing factors. The investigation end up calling into question just how “root” any cause can really be.

    I understood this trap over the last year during my investigations of complex systems science and cybernetics. The satisfying sense of vindication at dicovering a root cause (“Well just look, THERE’s your problem!”) dissolves into a mush of ambiguity as causes are revealed also to be effects; that candidate root causes turn out to be necessary but not sufficient; or while they may be explanatory in some areas they utterly fail to provide insight in others.

    This insight into the possible invalidity of the “root cause concept” has prompted me to go back through my previous positions (all handily recorded for posterity on my web site) and start dumping root causes overboard like sacks of spoiled potatoes. Candidate root causes that I’ve discarded over the last year include:

    » Overpopulation;
    » Agriculture;
    » Fossil fuels;
    » Technology;
    » Money;
    » Urbanization;
    » Social behaviour;
    » Capitalism;
    » Imperialism;
    » Human behaviours like short-sightedness, greed, blame, competition and politics;
    and even
    » Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.

    Now, all these factors obviously play roles in the Global Fustercluck. My claim is that we can’t point to any one of them and say, “Well just look, THERE’s your problem!”

    I’m in the process of repudiating yet one more belief that has underpinned much of my thinking for the last half dozen years. That belief is the notion that some peculiarly human “sense of separation” is what enables us to see the universe as simply a bag of resources, to use as we wish in order to satisfy our perceived needs. I first wrote about this belief in late 2008, in the essay “Separation, Awakening and Revolution”.

    I’ve gradually realized that in fact ALL sentient animals see the universe this way – either explicitly as among mammals like coyotes or humans, or implicitly as in the case of insects, snakes or mollusks. The perception of the world as a set of external resources underlies the food web in general and predator-prey relationships in particular. Being able to see “the other” as food for yourself makes possible the “take as you need” behaviour that is universal to living organisms.

    Homo sapiens behaves exactly like any other animal in this regard, but with two crucial additions: our ability to form complex abstract thoughts, and our outrageously good problem-solving skills.

    Our basic animal nature (along with the various principles governing growth and the acquisition and competition for resources) sets the directions for our general behaviour. Our quintessentially human ability to solve problems through logic and abstraction then turns us into world-eating executors of those directions.

    One skill that gives a huge boost to our task of consuming the world is our ability to re-frame our wants as needs, thus giving us a convenient justification for satisfying them. The ability to fool ourselves this way seems to be yet another result of our ability to create abstractions – this time out of the concepts of “want” and “need”. The abstraction helps us to conflate the two as we analyze them using high-level cognitive processes.

    I suspect that this behavioural foundation is quite culture-independent. Different cultures may have very different ways of executing the underlying directions, cultural programs that are heavily influenced by their particular local situation in time and space. However IMO different cultures do NOT execute different underlying directions – the basic program is inherent in all organisms (including us), as expressed through their interactions with their local environments.

    In the face of this, there is no need to implicate or blame cognition, self-awareness or consciousness for the unleashing of our collective growth process. Self-awareness of course plays a role in our ability to apply abstraction and logic to our problem-solving activities. But so far I have seen no convincing proof that the system needs us to be self-aware in order to operate as it does. This is probably why humans can run a global civilization with so little evidence of introspection, objectivity or self-awareness.

    Like the other candidates I listed above, self-awareness is probably not a root cause of the “world hiccup” – for the simple reason that there isn’t one.

  • Paul Chefurka Says:
    March 22nd, 2015 at 3:38 pm
    “In a recent post I said that the hidden trap of looking for “root causes” in complex systems is that there tend not to be any. Instead of root causes we usually find a tangled mass of feedback loops. The belief that one has uncovered a root cause is simply a belief, and a fragile one at that. It usually takes very little open-minded research to find other contributing factors. The investigation end up calling into question just how “root” any cause can really be.

    I understood this trap over the last year during my investigations of complex systems science and cybernetics. The satisfying sense of vindication at dicovering a root cause (“Well just look, THERE’s your problem!”) dissolves into a mush of ambiguity as causes are revealed also to be effects; that candidate root causes turn out to be necessary but not sufficient; or while they may be explanatory in some areas they utterly fail to provide insight in others.

    This insight into the possible invalidity of the “root cause concept” has prompted me to go back through my previous positions (all handily recorded for posterity on my web site) and start dumping root causes overboard like sacks of spoiled potatoes. Candidate root causes that I’ve discarded over the last year include:

    » Overpopulation;
    » Agriculture;
    » Fossil fuels;
    » Technology;
    » Money;
    » Urbanization;
    » Social behaviour;
    » Capitalism;
    » Imperialism;
    » Human behaviours like short-sightedness, greed, blame, competition and politics;
    and even
    » Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.

    Now, all these factors obviously play roles in the Global Fustercluck. My claim is that we can’t point to any one of them and say, “Well just look, THERE’s your problem!””

    Right. Let’s PRETEND that capitalism doesn’t itself necessarily require all the others, that capitalism is the ONLY social system that’s ever existed which requires growth, i.e. which has an IMPERATIVE to grow or collapse, even if this growth leads to extinction, even short-term extinction.. Instead, let’s Just wave our hands, wash them off the mounting crisis, and offer psycho-babble as to how humans are themselves the problem, as is life itself, isn’t it terrible, but let’s just accept it, while we go on living in the empire’s home office and at least marginally benefitting from the looting of the world’s populace and the ecosphere.

  • I have been lurking for a long time but this video, ending with “good” struck home. I couldn’t agree more.
    Thank you for this space to express myself.

  • I don’t mind realizing that our hands were never actually dirty in the first place. I’m not sure why so many are attached to the idea that people (or at least some other people) are dirty, diseased, broken or evil. My best guess is that it makes them easier to scapegoat when the need arises. Ernest Becker has quite a bit to say about that.

  • How big is a cube 500 kilometres on each side?

    It is about the same as a cube 311 miles on each side.

    It would reach past the International Space Station orbit (258 miles) by ~53 miles.

    So what is that big?

    The cube of ice melting each year from Greenland & Antarctica which is causing sea level to rise.

    It is the number one danger to national security according to the President and the Pentagon (What Do You Mean – World Civilization? – 2).

  • Randy A said:

    “I have been lurking for a long time but this video, ending with “good” struck home. I couldn’t agree more.
    Thank you for this space to express myself.”

    —-

    Randy, welcome to the club. There are many here who want NTE to happen as soon as possible for no other reason than seeing a grossly unjust and unsavory state of affairs come to an end.

    ========

    Clive said:

    “Your questions such as ”who am I” and ”where are my people” I see more in terms of identification. We are what we are identified with. That identification, which is psychological in nature, seems to be stronger that life itself. Viz the suicide bomber, the war ‘hero’, sacrificing his life for what he identifies with, what he believes in. Please note I am not supporting such ideas, and for me an important question is: Does there have to be identification at all? The very structure of the self is identification. And one sees that there can never be real freedom as long as there is identification.”

    —-

    Clive, a different example could be given that shows the bright side of identification: a bunch of people pitching in to help a fellow passenger. If I were that passenger, I’d be really glad all those people identified with me and my plight and did something to help me.

    I think it’s fair to say that it’s normal for human beings to feel pleasure and pain. Perhaps we can think of it as a continuum. There are some who don’t feel much of either pleasure or pain. And there are some who are very sensitive to both. Are those who can’t feel pleasure or pain more free than those who are sensitive to them? Identification causes both these feelings so is the only way to avoid suffering a complete banning of identification? Is it an ideal we must strive for even if it’s not practical in day to day life? Don’t get me wrong… I actually identify with you (no pun intended) when you say real freedom comes from an absence of identification. You might be talking about those moments of space between thoughts that are characteristic of the meditative state. But I think there is no such thing as “real freedom” in the normal human condition. There’s no freedom from the body anyway and the body is a source of both pleasure and pain. Perhaps we could think in terms of peace of mind, harmony, contentment, joy, etc. in lieu of freedom.

    What’s a bit more practical is being aware and mindful of what we are identifying with in the moment. Such awareness can lead to a bit more harmony, a bit more peace of mind.

    =======

    Paul Chefurka said:

    “I’m trying not to adopt singular universalizing theories any more. These days I prefer to explore a variety of threads that seem to have at least the possibility of uncovering deeper human drivers, but without becoming too attached to any of them. No single such idea is “the answer” but most are worth exploring. together they weave a tapestry of motivation that I find fascinating.”

    —-

    Paul, good strategy! I am trying to implement the same.

    You further say, “We know that to be human is to be neurotic in some ways and to some degree; that there is no way to become an adult without serious twisting of one’s perceptions of the world. Even more, it is not the especially twisted people who are the most dangerous: coprophiliacs are harmless, rapists do not do the damage to life that idealistic leaders do. Also, leaders are a function of the ‘normal’ urges of the masses to some large extent; this means that even crippled leaders are an expression of the widespread urge to heroic transcendence.”

    I don’t understand why to be human is to be neurotic. Neurotic means “mentally ill, mentally disturbed, unstable, unbalanced, maladjusted”! If you’re talking about modern civilized man as the average representative of all of humanity, you might reach that conclusion. But there have been many other cultures that produced well-balanced human beings.

    It also doesn’t make sense to me to listen to someone who thinks of humans as neurotic. Unless Becker thinks he is an exception, why should anyone listen to a neurotic author? It’s like when someone says all people are liars. Would you believe that person who claims all people to be unpredictable liars, since, according to his own statement, he might be lying too? On the other hand, when someone says people are not liars, there’s an invitation to trust him whether we end up believing him or not eventually. So, Becker, by saying humans are neurotic, doesn’t invite me to consider his theories seriously.

    ==========

    ed said:

    “For those who know more about the science than I do, I wonder how common adultery is (if it even exists at all) among other monkey type animals? Is this a peculiarly HUMAN behavior?”

    —-

    I finally have something I can agree with Bud Nye on, going by his response to the above.
    Also recommend the book “Sex at Dawn” which explores human sexuality across the ages and cultures.

    =======

    Bob S. said:

    “I think all the heartfelt posters simply left when the blog was overrun with the mental masterbators and constant correctors. Rare are personal stories about dealing with NBL — now it’s all about what happened 10,000 years ago and/or how many farts will fit in a jar. Sure it all sounds important but it’s all empty words endlessly juggled for someones mental pleasure.

    No positive action can come of it – just more words and theories.

    Oh and the **someone’s wrong on the internet** gaggle of all knowing correctors.

    OFC that’s just my view from my throne.”

    —-

    People come to this space for all sorts of reasons, Bob. Some come here for solace and to relate to others. Personal stories and anecdotes are welcome. I have seen many in just the last couple of months… people talking about pain and loss, birds, monarch butterflies, etc. Some also come here to find answers to questions they have. Like, “with all the stories of progress and civilization we have been taught about in school and elsewhere, how come we’re going extinct?” For these folks, an understanding of what went wrong, if something in fact did, and their relationship with the processes that have been contributing to this immense loss is as important as grieving the loss. In other words, some people come here to fill in gaps in their worldviews and raise their awareness about the world they live in. Piecing together the puzzle sometimes requires a second look at pre-history. Such an inquiry may not come across as important to everyone but it is clearly important to some. There are few places on the Internet where a dialogue like this is possible.

    The reason why “heartfelt posters” leave is not because of what’s being discussed but by how attached people tend to become to their viewpoints and theories and the subsequent devolution that creeps into the communication until it breaks down. Sensitive posters don’t find such an environment safe enough. I regret their leaving too.

    ============

    Into Destiny said:
    What other response other than “good!” can you give to the revelation that a cancer is dying?

    —-

    Well said! The cancer is dying, FINALLY!

    ===========

    kevin moore said:

    “Some kind of turning point has finally been reached around here (a decade too late) in that ever=greater numbers of people are waking up to the fact that our so-called leaders have been lying scoundrels for years, and ‘everything’ is starting to fall to bits as a consequence.

    I know better understand the nature of the enemy: although ordinary people behave in an ‘idiotic’ manner most of the time it is because they have been carefully trained to behave in an idiotic manner by the agents of destruction associated with money-lending and corporate business (so called capitalism, in which capital is created out of thin air by members of the gang). And most people are just too uninformed and stupid to see what is right in front of them.”

    —-

    Kevin, it gives me some satisfaction to see that others have reached similar conclusions as me. I have seen a few other comments recently along the above lines that speak to the same sickness in society that you refer to above.

  • Small correction to something I said above:

    The reason why “heartfelt posters” leave is not because of what’s being discussed but by how attached people tend to become to their viewpoints and theories and see them as exclusive to or in contradiction to other posters’ viewpoints and theories and the subsequent devolution that creeps into the communication until it breaks down.

    How’s that for a theory?
    Should I say I’m not too attached to it? 🙂

  • @Satish,

    You have adopted a narrow, colloquial definition of the word neurosis. Broader definitions of a neurosis are something like this (from Wiki):

    “Neurosis is a class of functional mental disorders involving distress but neither delusions nor hallucinations. Neurotic behavior is typically within socially acceptable limits. Neurosis may also be called psychoneurosis or neurotic disorder.”

    and

    “Neurosis may be defined simply as a ‘poor ability to adapt to one’s environment, an inability to change one’s life patterns, and the inability to develop a richer, more complex, more satisfying personality.'”

    and

    “Jung found that the unconscious finds expression primarily through an individual’s inferior psychological function, whether it is thinking, feeling, sensation, or intuition. The characteristic effects of a neurosis on the dominant and inferior functions are discussed in Psychological Types.
    Jung saw collective neuroses in politics: “Our world is, so to speak, dissociated like a neurotic.””

    Becker’s position is that our awareness of our own mortality induces both conscious and unconscious distress, that we seek to discharge by various social and personal activities aimed at giving us a counterbalancing sense of immortality – or at least proving that others are more mortal than we are, as in sacrifice and warfare.

    @Dredd, can you tell me what the cube root of 500 is?

  • @Satish,

    Some also come here to find answers to questions they have. Like, “with all the stories of progress and civilization we have been taught about in school and elsewhere, how come we’re going extinct?” For these folks, an understanding of what went wrong, if something in fact did, and their relationship with the processes that have been contributing to this immense loss is as important as grieving the loss.

    This has been the topic of my own last ten years’ investigation. My recent conclusion has been that Homo sapiens has been operating exactly in accordance with our program all along. Given the sort of creature we are, the resources and geography available to us, in the climate that has existed over the last few tens of thousands of years, things could only have turned out as they have, IMO. (I don’t like the terms “as intended” or as designed” because they’re just too teleological for my taste – but the implication is the same.)

    This is why I’ve been able to discard notions of blame and collective or individual guilt so easily.

    We have had unavoidable impacts on our resource base (I think of it as a sort of predator-prey relationship) and our climate, which are going to cause natural changes to our way of being, because of simple feedbacks. Given similar creatures in a similar setting, I think our general trajectory would be a common result. That’s my answer to the Fermi Paradox.

    The reason why “heartfelt posters” leave is not because of what’s being discussed but by how attached people tend to become to their viewpoints and theories and see them as exclusive to or in contradiction to other posters’ viewpoints and theories and the subsequent devolution that creeps into the communication until it breaks down.

    That’s how I see the dynamics around here as well, which is why I don’t get into defensive fisticuffs any more. We all have belief systems that arise from our personal experience. If others’ beliefs don’t resonate with me, I can either battle against them (to our mutual detriment) or simply respond with my own views, without attempting to prove them wrong. I much prefer the latter approach.

    Attempting to prove others’ beliefs to be wrong is a fools errand, IMO.

  • Thanks for the correction Satish – guess I just need to read a few more books so I too can wrap my head around whether monkeys commit adultery.

  • The latest essay in this space comes from Carolyn Baker. It’s here.

  • Kevin Moore

    You wrote, among other complimentary anecdotes about people that, according to you:

    “Ordinary people behave in an ‘idiotic’ manner most of the time”,

    and that

    “Most people are just too uninformed and stupid”,

    just to name a few tidbits from your endless repertoire of niceties hurled towards those whom you perceive to possess lesser endowments than yourself.

    Yet, in Clyve Elwell’s post, (march 20, 10″321) you state without hesitation that: “I am not interested in opinions”. Period.

    So this leaves me with a perplexing poser….. Are your comments about ‘stupid’ and ‘idiotic’ people your ‘opinions’, or are they facts? You are of course entitled to your ‘opinions’, but then if you are not interested in opinions, why are you so inclined to offer so many opinions of your own? Just curious !!!

  • Dave T,

    I looked at the “Last Hours: The Frightening Reality of Global Climate Change” video you posted. It concludes with a plea to stop the emissions of GHGs. But how realistic is that? How will GHG emissions be stopped? Is there any possibility that politicians will enact a Spartan regime that prohibits central heating, house construction, agribusiness, the endless-growth economy?

    If you walk it backwards from here, you’d need to find a way for everyone concerned to get food and clean water. For stopping industrially induced GHG emissions would put most of raorder, for it to “work?” So, leaving out hundreds of practical threads that are somewhat like rocket science for me, a simple-minded assessment might include some of the following, with the same of corrected sequencing:

    – decommission nukes

    – spread radical-conservation ideology

    – stop deforestation (completely)

    – reforest universally

    – grow food in every nook and cranny of local built communities

    – stop sprawl development (and the commute traffic it also brings)

    – reconfigure urban space to accommodate all future needs for habitat

    – shut down the fossil fuel industry

    – universalize a gift, barter or some equivalent economy

    – dismantle industrial civilization

    Not only that; in some ways, all those activities (and many more) would need in some way to take place simultaneously (despite some leaning toward the sequence). I wonder what the video makers would have to say to this?

  • “If you walk it backwards from here, you’d need to find a way for everyone concerned to get food and clean water. For stopping industrially induced GHG emissions would put most people out of work. So what would have to be done (theoretically), and in what order, for it to “work?” So, leaving out hundreds of practical threads that are somewhat like rocket science for me, a simple-minded assessment might include some of the following, with the same of corrected sequencing:

  • Artleads,
    Good list, and you could add to that list ‘the elimination of slavery.’ And debt….

  • “… you could add to that list ‘the elimination of slavery.’ And debt….”

    Indeed, Jean. I’d put it around item 6, but it and a lot more are absolutely essential and can’t be put off, even if not the top priority for survival(IMO).

  • You have to end the monetary system,that is the root cause.

  • Good one Guy! Thanks for the laugh! So many people are disgusted and tired of all the nonsense.

  • @ Cheryl Says:
    March 23rd, 2015 at 2:10 pm

    While your comment is not without merit, perhaps even commendable, and I absolutely do not even imply any disrespect in the following, I think a rephrasing is in order. In other words…

    It’s disgusting that too many people tirelessly perpetuate nonsense and too many of those hearing/reading such believe that crap.”

  • We’re advanced. We can deal with the shock:
    Global Warming is starting to rock.
    Shell and Exxon now plan
    Necrophiliastan
    As the blessings of Spock morph to mock.

  • Dennis says:

    “You have to end the monetary system,that is the root cause.”

    I’m not sure which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Nothing can happen within our deadly monetary system. But the world is not prepared for when it ends. And maybe preparing for it (if that were possible) would help it to collapse.